Chicago Teachers Union v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 2012 IL
112566

Rule 20 Certified Question from 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Justices Thomas, Garman, Karmeier, and Burke concurred in the judgment and
opinion.

Justice Theis dissented, with opinion, joined by Chief Justice Kilbride.

In the summer of 2010, the Board of Education of the City of Chicago was faced
with significant budget deficits. The Board laid off 1,289 teachers in several phases
during the summer. To the extent that vacancies were available within the system,
laid-off teachers were not given preference for other teaching jobs, nor were all
available vacancies posted on the website which the Board maintained.

In August of 2010, there was an increase in federal funding. Approximately 715
tenured teachers were recalled. However, many of the available positions were filled
with new hires, rather than laid-off tenured teachers. There was no official recall
policy.

The Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1, American Federation of Teachers
filed suit in federal court, claiming a denial of due process. After several subsequent
phases of litigation at the federal level, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit concluded that the Supreme Court of Illinois should be given an
opportunity to interpret Illinois law. A question was certified from the federal court
asking what the School Code provides as to whether these Chicago tenured teachers
have a right to be rehired after an economic layoff and whether they have a right to
certain procedures during the rehiring process.

In this decision, the supreme court answered these questions. Public schools in
the City of Chicago are treated differently under the statutes of Illinois. Pursuant to
the provisions of the School Code, in all the other public school districts in Illinois
except Chicago, laid-off tenured teachers (with satisfactory or better evaluations)
have a right of recall and, subject to their certification and seniority, have a right to
be rehired into new vacancies in their districts for a period of one or two years,
depending on the size of the layoff.

In 1995, the School Code provisions governing Chicago were amended to remove
limitations on the power to lay off tenured teachers. Layoff and recall procedures
were removed from the statute, and any substantive rights to be rehired after an
economic layoff were eliminated.

Although the current statute speaks of layoff and rehire procedures that could be
adopted, the Chicago Board of Education did not do so. Thus, the statutes at issue do
not give Chicago teachers the substantive rights argued for by the union. The School
Code does not provide that, after an economic layoff in Chicago, only the most
qualified or most experienced tenured teachers will be recalled. It does not give
tenured teachers a right to recall procedures. After an economic layoff, tenured
teachers have neither a substantive right to be rehired nor a right to certain procedures
during the rehiring process.

The supreme court declined to read into the School Code’s language something
which the legislature did not put there.